We have studied neoliberalism, in some depths. I think it's safe to assume that the economists in charge of the monetary system of the U.S. have successfully transferred the U.S. Economy from one that relied on the more stable real capital towards one of the less safe, more risky potential capital. It's not that we were in such financial dire straits that it was necessary, but rather an investigation into whether neoliberalism worked on a grand scale. It was proven, at least to any intelligent individual, that neoliberalism, as the predominant theory of that time, was insufficient. Yet, despite this, Neoliberals maintained that only their system was the right one for economic growth. They despise any other outlook, or way of looking at the economy other than that of what is the greatest potential.

In a hotly contested campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush, the son of George H. W. Bush, was appointed to the Presidency by a ruling from the Supreme Court that cut the deadline for Florida for recounting the votes. This was, perhaps, one of the most influential decisions that the Supreme Court ever took part in. Having no Constitutional Authority, the Supreme Court decided that Bush, rather than Gore, would win the election by stopping the recounts. This was done through a series of votes that were not unanimous in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Alan Dershowitz wrote, "[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath." (Charles L. Zelden, Bush v. Gore: Exposing the Hidden Crisis of American Democracy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008) ISBN 0-7006-1593-8, (Dershowitz) as cited in Wikipedia) Its incumbent upon those Justices to now stand impeachment, if the Congress ever gets the nerve to do so. However, not one Justice has ever been impeached in U.S. History for any violations, so they feel secure. This set up the neoliberals in the Bush Advisory Board to begin their plans.

Bush had many Neoliberal Advisors, and was lead through those gates because the words seem like wisdom for those that won't find facts for themselves. Studying is the best way to understand the facts, and this should be done as early as possible once a political official says anything to find the truth in facts. Studying facts, and fact based known articles, like http:www.politifact.org and others. It's unfortunate that we can't believe even the most basic news stories reported on or Main Stream media, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. these days, but we have become divisive based upon our political and social beliefs and these media outlets only make profits from those diversities, making them even greater.

Karl Rove was a major advisor to the White House under the G. W. Bush Administration. He had major ties to many neoliberal institutions around the U.S. For example, he was tied with the Heritage Foundation, and many other supposed "conservative" influences.

THE NEOCON LIE: WHAT IS IT REALLY?

Many people within the media and across the nation have bought into the "neocon" theories. The problem is, they don't really exist. Yes, there are huge articles and blogs, even whole websites devoted to the neocon's, and what lies they may have told. I suggest, however, that the Neocons do not actually exist. I am going to prove that through the rest of this article, and into the next by way of the very description of what a "neocon" and a Neoliberal are.

Let me explain my position by first clarifying that, yes, neocons really do exist, but don't have the influences that many people have reported in politics. A Neocon, or new conservative, is actually more in tune with a realist than the war mongering self purported neocons in politics. Most of the time, whenever you hear the word Neocon, you get this image of Karl Rove, or Condoleezza Rice, maybe of the arch-enemy of Democrats himself, George W. Bush. None of those images are true, however, and it's incumbent upon me to show you the truth, because only in understanding the truth will we be freer to find solutions in our political choices.

First, I want to dig into why I believe, and try to convince you, that neoliberalism was at the heart of the 2 Wars that Bush started, and why the Economic Outlook and the facts surrounding September 11, 2001 need to be understood through the magnifying glass of the Neoliberals rather than the Neocons. Remember from my previous articles that Neoliberals had been gaining in influence throughout the 60's 70's 80's and 90's. They had lied, stole, deceived, played "Tricks", even garnered favor in the Republican Party for their less than prudent ventures to gain more Republican Votes. Remember, too, that all Republicans care about is gaining office, no matter the consequences, to advance their diverse ideologies.

Neoliberals didn't just magically appear on the center stage over the last 20 years. They spent many years amongst themselves attempting to win over a majority of Republican Thinkers. The think tanks like Heritage Foundation was founded on this principle. They aren't Conservative in any ideology. Conservativism is an ideology that maintains things of the past were better. These people today that claim to be Conservatives DO NOT want to return to any form of the past that worked. They don't care about if the masses are affected by their illogical conclusions. They only care about the agenda. That is the only thing that really matters to them.

So, why call them Neoliberals in the first place, and not neoconservatives? The fact is, you wouldn't call a Libertarian a Liberal, or a Conservative, because the ideologies may align on certain issues, but they don't align on the bigger issues. Remember, there are two types of Neoliberals. One type is only economic thought, the other is the overall ideological makeup. The latter is what I almost always refer to when discussing neoliberals, in general (although admittedly I do not make much of a distinction between the two at all times because I simply don't perceive a difference between the two). The biggest problem with calling a Neoliberal a Neoconservative is that it actually takes valuable insight that neocons have into politics that might work. In contrast, Neoliberals don't make any positive contributions towards enabling Public Policies to maintain a positive effect on the Constituencies or the economic outlooks.

Neoliberals, by definition, is the political view, arising in the 1960s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces, or the economic liberalization of the free trade and open markets with the ideology that the free market principles are the best form for Social Justice as it can effectively maintain the growth rate better than a centralized governing unit. It maintains that any economic thought contrary to it is bogus economics and politics.

In International Neoliberalism, they maintain that nation-States should only be concerned with relative gains rather than international gains. Its, in the basic principles, the same thought process of economics taken to the International Level, to put it plainly. It maintains that if you are a nation unto yourself, the only thing you should rely on is the international gains that you might (speculating) get rather than real gains. They use the Game Theory (a theory used primarily by psychologists, economists, and logisticians) in order to maintain a zero sum loss or gain from any other international entity. In other words, let's use Iraq as an example of this so that you can better understand the reasons for the Invasion, and the consequences of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War wasn't about Weapons of mass Destruction. It wasn't about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. It wasn't even about Human Trafficking. Iraq was all about leveling the playing field so that the US could better compete with the other Arab Nations in Oil Prices. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, for short. You see, in the late 1990's (somewhere around 1999), OPEC was going to dramatically increase the price of Petroleum worldwide. " Starting in December 1996, Iraqi income from smuggled oil was augmented by earnings from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, which supervised the marketing of some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi crude between the start of the program and March 2003, when the United States and Britain invaded Iraq." (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/OPEC.aspx paragraph 11, emphasis added) It was because of this, and this even t alone, that the Neoliberals wanted to invade Iraq. The Neoliberals needed sound reasoning for the invasion. Bush set that to task in Rove and Company.

The Neoliberals maintained power throughout most of the Bush Administration. They progressed their ideologies so during that time in massive scales never before seen, except under FDR's Keynesian Theories. They created a housing market that allowed the markets to skyrocket on real property in exchange for potential future capital for the same real property. The markets were set, and expanding like no other time since right before the Great Depression. Everything, on the surface, appeared fantastic.

THE 2008 ECONOMIC COLLAPSE: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AND WHY

Next, we will look, in short, at why the economic collapse happened, and how George W. Bush, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulsen, and Barack Obama saved this nation from economic ruin.

I hope, with all my heart, that I convinced each of you that neoliberals, not neoconservatives, were the problem.